PG3.2 (beta 3) - Secure Message Handling increasing CPU usage

[Paranoid2000]

With the latest beta (3) of PG 3.200 I have found that enabling Secure Message Handling for any process causes its CPU utilisation to increase by 10%, regardless of its other activity (i.e. if idle, it will still consume 10%). This increase occurs immediately when SMH is enabled and only disabling SMH and restarting the process cures it.

This is on a 1Ghz PIII system with 512MB RAM running Win2K SP4. Anyone else seeing this?

[steverio]

P2k...

This morning I'm not seeing a CPU increase with SMH engaged upon checking with some programs running. Last night before I shut down the computer I checked with the same programs running and was getting an increase of around 5%.

3Ghz P4 system with 512MB RAM running XP Pro SP2

[Marine06]

I have SMH enabled for several programs and I also have not noticed an increase in cpu usage. I'll monitor this more closely just to be sure.

1.7 p4-m, 1gb ram, xp pro sp2

[Paranoid2000]

I repeated my tests after a Windows restart and SMH did not increase CPU utilisation this time around so this does not appear to be a consistent problem.

[Marine06]

After several days, I also have not noticed an increase in cpu usage. Paranoid, did you install any other programs around the time you updated processguard?

[Paranoid2000]

Nothing else was installed - since the problem did occur on the first restart after installing PG (adding the previous version's .dat files and making the necessary Registry changes to avoid Learning mode) I'm wondering if this may just occur the first time PG is run - or whether importing a previous configuration could have caused this.

Steverio, since you seem to have encountered a similar issue, did you go through learning mode with this install or did you import the configuration files from a previous version?

[Gavin - DiamondCS]

Could have been an initial hiccup - PG sometimes took a little while to actually activate close message handling, because a DLL has to start running inside the target. We added code and tricks to that and it must still have some problem ;)